Velocity-Based vs Percentage-Based Strength Training in Young Football Players

NCT07802028 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: 2011-KAEK-26/343
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 58
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of six weeks of velocity-based training (VBT) and traditional percentage-based strength training (TRD) on 20 m sprint performance, vertical jump, and aerobic capacity in elite young football players. The main research question was: Does VBT produce greater improvements than TRD in these performance markers? Researchers compared VBT with TRD to determine whether VBT leads to superior enhancements in sprint speed, jump performance, and aerobic capacity among elite young football players. Participants: Performed either VBT squat training, VBT squat plus bench press training, or TRD squat training. Completed VBT or TRD sessions three times per week for six weeks. Attended the laboratory for measurements and tests before and after the six-week training program.

Conditions

Exercise (EX); Strength Training Effects; Soccer Performance

Keywords

strength training; soccer; performance enhancement; velocity

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• Countermovement jump (CMJ)

  In the countermovement jump (CMJ) test, vertical jump height was measured using an Infinitek electronic vertical jump device (Infinitek Company, Istanbul, Turkey). Each participant performed two trials, separated by a 60-second passive rest interval. The better performance was recorded for analysis.

  From enrollment to the completion of the six-week exercise program, participants followed the prescribed training protocol.

• 20m Sprint

  A wireless two-door Sinar photocell device (Sinar, Turkey) was used to measure 20-meter sprint performance. Each participant performed two 20-meter sprints, separated by a three-minute rest interval, and the better time was recorded. Participants were instructed to walk forward naturally with relaxed arms and an upright posture beginning three meters before the timing line. After the final step before the line, they accelerated maximally through the 20-meter distance.

  From enrollment to the completion of the six-week exercise program, participants followed the prescribed training protocol.

• Aerobic capacity

  Aerobic capacity was assessed using the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 2 (Yo-Yo IR2). In this test, participants performed repeated 2 × 20-meter shuttle runs at progressively increasing speeds, moving back and forth between the starting, turning, and finishing lines. Between each shuttle run, a 10-second active recovery period was allowed, during which participants walked or jogged within a 5-meter recovery zone. Running speed was dictated by audio signals automatically controlled by a CD player. Cones were used to mark 2-meter-wide, 20-meter-long running lanes, with an additional cone placed 5 meters behind the starting line to indicate the recovery area.The test was terminated when the participant was unable to continue or failed to reach the finish line on two consecutive occasions. The total distance covered was recorded as the test result. Maximal oxygen uptake was estimated using the following equation: VO2max = distance (m) × 0.0136 + 45.3

  From enrollment to the completion of the six-week exercise program, participants followed the prescribed training protocol.

Secondary Outcomes (3)

• TRD One maximum repetition - Squat (TRD 1-RM Squat):

  Before enrollment to exercise programme.

• One maximum repetition - Squat VBT (1-RM Squat VBT)

  Before enrollment to exercise programme.

• One maximum repetition - Bench Press VBT (1-RM Bench press VBT)

  Before enrollment to exercise programme.

Study Arms (3)

Velocity-Based Squat + Bench Press Training (SqBp_V)

EXPERIMENTAL

Velocity-based strength training (VBT) consisted of squat and bench press exercises.

Other: Velocity Based Squat and Bench Press Training

Velocity-Based Squat Training (Sq_V)

EXPERIMENTAL

Velocity-based strength training (VBT) consisted of squat exercises.

Other: Velocity Based Squat Training

Traditional Strength Training (TRD)

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Traditional strength training (TRD) consisted of squat exercises.

Other: Traditional Strength Training

Interventions

Velocity Based Squat and Bench Press Training OTHER

The squat and bench press strength program was implemented for six weeks, with three sessions per week, immediately after regular soccer practice. The one-repetition maximum (1-RM) for both squat and bench press was assessed weekly, and the training program was updated accordingly throughout the six-week intervention.

Velocity-Based Squat + Bench Press Training (SqBp_V)

Velocity Based Squat Training OTHER

The squat strength program was implemented for six weeks, with three sessions per week, immediately after regular soccer practice. The one-repetition maximum (1-RM) for the squat was assessed weekly, and the training program was updated accordingly throughout the six-week intervention.

Velocity-Based Squat Training (Sq_V)

Traditional Strength Training OTHER

The squat strength program was implemented for six weeks, with three sessions per week, immediately after regular soccer practice. The one-repetition maximum (1-RM) for the squat was assessed only in the first week, and this value was used to prescribe training loads throughout the intervention.

Traditional Strength Training (TRD)

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 16 Years - 18 Years
• Sex: male
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Male football players aged 16-18 years
• Minimum of five years of licensed competitive football experience
• At least three years of structured strength-training experience
• No prior experience with velocity-based training (VBT)
• Free from musculoskeletal injury within the previous six months
• Willingness to comply with all study procedures and provide written informed consent

You may not qualify if:

• Previous participation in a VBT program
• Any musculoskeletal injury within the previous six months
• Use of medications or stimulants that may affect physical performance
• Failure to complete baseline testing or intervention procedures
• Presence of cardiovascular, neurological, or metabolic disorders that could interfere with study participation

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Uludag University: lead

Study Sites (1)

Bursa Uludağ University, Faculty of Spor Sciences

Bursa, NİLÜFER, 16120, Turkey (Türkiye)

Location

Related Publications (6)

• Wang Y, Qiu J, Dai D, Li Q, Wang X, Luo Q. The effects of velocity-based vs. percentage-based resistance training on sports performance in trainedindividuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2026 Jan 5;18(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13102-025-01504-9.

  PMID: 41491263 BACKGROUND

• Loturco I, Pereira LA, Boullosa D. Reassessing the Role of 1-Repetition Maximum Testing for Resistance-Training Prescription and Monitoring. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2026 Mar 3;21(8):968-972. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2025-0700. Print 2026 Aug 1.

  PMID: 41780507 BACKGROUND

• Jimenez-Reyes P, Castano-Zambudio A, Cuadrado-Penafiel V, Gonzalez-Hernandez JM, Capelo-Ramirez F, Martinez-Aranda LM, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: consequences for strength training control and programming. PeerJ. 2021 Mar 23;9:e10942. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10942. eCollection 2021.

  PMID: 33828909 BACKGROUND

• Flanagan, E., & Jovanovic M. (2014). Researched applications of velocity-based training. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 22(2), 58-69.

  BACKGROUND

• Chung, B., Bing, W., & Kim, D. (2025). Velocity-based vs. percentage-based training: Superior effects on acceleration and explosive power in high school triple jump athletes. Applied Sciences, 15(22), 12010. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152212010

  BACKGROUND

• Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Torres-Ronda L. The Implementation of Velocity-Based Training Paradigm for Team Sports: Framework, Technologies, Practical Recommendations and Challenges. Sports (Basel). 2021 Mar 30;9(4):47. doi: 10.3390/sports9040047.

  PMID: 33808302 BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Motor Activity

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Behavior

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Prof. Dr.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: August 30, 2026
• First Posted: September 3, 2026
• Study Start: August 15, 2022
• Primary Completion: October 1, 2022
• Study Completion: October 30, 2022
• Last Updated: September 9, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-09

Locations

TU (1)